SP - General Early Access = Exhausting Alpha

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not that it has any relevance to the topic, but I can't help wonder: what does communism have to do with racial diversity?
Nothing really. Communists, in practice, were and are virulently racist. The Soviet Union was flagrantly racist behind closed doors with their treatment of Indians and Jews and Africans... And, if you've seen any of the reporting on their current persecution of Africans during COVID, the communist Chinese are following right in their footsteps.

What I'm alluding to is the fact that Western woke "socialists" (who make bad video games) have a tendency to view everything through the lens of race and gender... which is especially bad for a medieval game because those concepts literally didn't exist back then.

And also these same people love promoting the theory that medieval Europe was extremely ethnically-diverse which - while kind of theoretically possible in limited ways - has no real basis in history.

The Roman Empire? Completely different story. Was probably much more diverse than as portrayed in media.
 
Not that it has any relevance to the topic, but I can't help wonder: what does communism have to do with racial diversity?
The word racist and the concept of racism was invented by the communist party in the ussr. Its purpose was to destabilize democracies and flood socialism all over the world. Inherently it`s an idiotic term as ''racism'' is just another form of generalisation thinking, of which we`re all guilty of and most of the time it happens to be correct. Generally, not on a case by case scenario. But that`s why it`s called generalisation.
 
This is.. an interesting statement. What is your source?
From
quote:
,,Zile Huma, studied at Scholars Science College
Answered Apr 3, 2019


How and when the term racism first gained widespread adoption is debated. There are isolated uses of the term racism from c. 1900, with the first recorded use in 1902 in a quote by Richard Henry Pratt.
Other terms like racialist (1910), racialism (1882), race hatred (19c) and negrophobia (19c) were in use even earlier.The term Racism itself entered widespread use in 1936.
While most early use of the word was in the context of Nazi Theories, some point to Leon Trotsky's early use of the word as evidence the term has widespread origins as a political weapon used by far-left Communist ideologues in order to create division. A theory predictably popularized by online wingnut vanguards and 'race realists' such as Stefan Molyneux.
It is based on the fact that, in 1930, Trotsky used the word "rasisti" in his text The History of the Russian Revolution, and the term "racism" appears to have gained widespread use later in the same decade.''

Also, common knowledge in my history classes (Romania, high school and university education both touched on the subject, bot curriculums indicated as origin the ussr).

+ multiple other information spots on the internet which, you`ll have to excuse me, but i`m too lazy to point out at the moment.
 
And the latest hotfix is...

* Nerfing influence gain for troop donations
* Nerfing sieges
* Nerfing town prosperity

This is on top of the previous
* Nerfing renown boosts from Artisan Community and Great Investor
* Nerfing companions by giving them wages and crappier armor
* Nerfing caravans
* Nerfing tournament shields

Who TF is asking for all these nerfs instead of fixing broken gameplay?

IDK... I saw there were supposedly fixes to garrison size and recruit doomstacks etc. I'll believe it when I see it. In my new playthrough I'm just going full meta instead of roleplaying because you're apparently only allowed to have fun if you grind the first half of the game solo for money, xp, equipment and renown before you join/start a kingdom.

The word racist and the concept of racism was invented by the communist party in the ussr. Its purpose was to destabilize democracies and flood socialism all over the world. Inherently it`s an idiotic term as ''racism'' is just another form of generalisation thinking, of which we`re all guilty of and most of the time it happens to be correct. Generally, not on a case by case scenario. But that`s why it`s called generalisation.
This is.. an interesting statement. What is your source?

That is interesting and isn't necessarily surprising, it's a little besides my point.

Namely that (and I hope my account's old enough for me to post links) race as a concept literally didn't exist until the Enlightenment period.


Ancient Romans didn't view other humans as biologically distinct - just as culturally inferior. They, at times, extended privileges and even citizenship to many people regardless of race... so a racially-diverse Roman Empire/Republic is quite plausible.

But yeah nope there was pretty much no ethnic diversity in, say, backwater hamlets in 15th Century Bohemia, despite the "That's racist!" criticisms directed at a certain other popular medieval sim.
 
Thing is western European culture is galloping full speed towards this neocommunism craziness, so you can expect to see a lot more of the ''gender fluid, feminazism, diversity is our strength'' in games, movies, etc.
 
From
quote:
,,Zile Huma, studied at Scholars Science College
Answered Apr 3, 2019


How and when the term racism first gained widespread adoption is debated. There are isolated uses of the term racism from c. 1900, with the first recorded use in 1902 in a quote by Richard Henry Pratt.
Other terms like racialist (1910), racialism (1882), race hatred (19c) and negrophobia (19c) were in use even earlier.The term Racism itself entered widespread use in 1936.
While most early use of the word was in the context of Nazi Theories, some point to Leon Trotsky's early use of the word as evidence the term has widespread origins as a political weapon used by far-left Communist ideologues in order to create division. A theory predictably popularized by online wingnut vanguards and 'race realists' such as Stefan Molyneux.
It is based on the fact that, in 1930, Trotsky used the word "rasisti" in his text The History of the Russian Revolution, and the term "racism" appears to have gained widespread use later in the same decade.''

Also, common knowledge in my history classes (Romania, high school and university education both touched on the subject, bot curriculums indicated as origin the ussr).

+ multiple other information spots on the internet which, you`ll have to excuse me, but i`m too lazy to point out at the moment.

The link that you are quoting doesn't even say what you said in your post, and your sources appear to be "common knowledge" and "the internet". Alright then, I suppose that's for the best, an actual discussion on this would go severely off topic and it probably isn't worth it.
 
And the latest hotfix is...

* Nerfing influence gain for troop donations
* Nerfing sieges
* Nerfing town prosperity

This is on top of the previous
* Nerfing renown boosts from Artisan Community and Great Investor
* Nerfing companions by giving them wages and crappier armor
* Nerfing caravans
* Nerfing tournament shields

Who TF is asking for all these nerfs instead of fixing broken gameplay?

IDK... I saw there were supposedly fixes to garrison size and recruit doomstacks etc. I'll believe it when I see it. In my new playthrough I'm just going full meta instead of roleplaying because you're apparently only allowed to have fun if you grind the first half of the game solo for money, xp, equipment and renown before you join/start a kingdom.
I think they are slowing down early-mid game progression so players can get as much fun as possible because end game (kingdom management) almost doesn't exist. And no the current kingdom management is barebones. Greyed out declare war/peace, no truce, automatic war/peace (your own kingdon declaring war/peace and you have no control), after signing peace they will declare war the next day, Vassal leaving no matter what, You have no control over kingdom decisions (they say they fixed it but still prevalent).
 
I don`t discuss communism with anyone who`s not from a country that experienced it. If you`re a communist sympatizer by all means, jog on. If not, again, you can`t understand something that you`ve never experienced so it ain`t worth explaining it to you.
 
Can I ask you something? Does Bannerlord even come close to the amount of things Warband has in terms to do? Does it have the same amount of content? Is it really an updated Warband with better graphics?
Yes already did. Yes but due to balancing issues you can reach the end game far quicker so it can seem like there is less to do, also some features are just in as placeholders and inactive/unfinished. Yes and no, content is comparable to a degree but it is lacking in some areas and expanded in others. You could argue this either way honestly as it has almost everything Warband has to offer, yet a few pieces are missing or incomplete but it throws in some new stuff as well and expands upon previously existing features.

Good enough?
 
I pretty much agree with everything but your last point. As a realism simulator succession seems great, but on a game-level especially for an early access game it seems too abusable, since already u can marry with only a donkey to your name for BiS gear at level 1.
 
3) Every war quickly descends into endless stupid doomstacks of recruits:

I saw a dev post they already had a solution to this with an impressive table of result that shows the new total troop numbers by faction and what tier those troops are. The new results seems much improved with AI slowly building up more troops total and vastly less recruits. They just haven't added in to the most recent patch yet.
 
1. there is almost no good loot no matter how hard or big the battle was
2. if i have 5 focus points in 1hand and in 2hand, 1hand is at 150 and 2hand at 30 .......why do i have the same xp rate for both skills?

1. This depends on who your forces wound. I've looted full Lamellar plate armours from several battles before by ensuring my troops are the ones that wound the enemy leaders (that are wearing the armour). It seems whatever you wound, is permittable for you to loot...

2. Learning rate is determined by your overall level. The higher your base level, the slower your learning rate. Therefore, with the same FPs added to the same skills, your learning rate is the same.

Yeah the system is arcane and it's unclear exactly what screw things up. Possibly multiple things. I'm new so I'm not allowed to post links but you can google "working traits mod" to see a list of the mechanics as they exist in the code.

From my experience playing the mofo, it is impossible to gain a trait at all in-game without console cheats. What the mod I referenced does apparently is just keep the original one you got from character creation and keep it. It's not clear whether it allows you to earn one.

Apparently:
Honor is supposed to be earned by completing quests and is lost by either failing quests or betraying questgivers. Also executing a noble loses honor equivalent to failing 20-50 quests.
Mercy is lost by raiding villages or taking the violent option in specific quests. It is only gained by succeeding at the nonviolent option in specific quests.
Generosity is supposed to be gained by feeding your troops well and lost by starving them.
Calculating is supposed to be raised by persuading nobles to defect or freeing them from enemy captivity. There doesn't appear to be a mechanic for losing it.
Valor is SUPPOSED to be gained by contributing personally in battles and lost in sacrificing troops. Apparently it's so buggy the modder still has no idea how to fix it.

I've done tons of these things and the ONLY thing that gave me a trait was executing nobles. I ganked 2 of them and had to gank a third before I got the "Dishonorable" trait.

It's unclear but apparently the thresholds for changing trait values are absurdly high, meaning you'd have to find and grind the same mission for hours in order to have any effect on your personality traits. I've been in a bazillion battles and never sacrificed troops and I still haven't gained valor. And I definitely haven't gained calculating back after freeing several captured nobles and convincing nobles to defect a dozen times.

Execution penalty = -1000 (Honor)
Troops sacrificed penalty = -30 (Valor)
Village raiding penalty = -30 (Mercy)
Party Starvation penalty = -20 (Generosity)
Party Morality bonus = +20 (Genorosity)
Free Lord bonus = +20 (Calculating)
Defection bonus = +20 (Calculating)

Issues (quests) have their own bonuses depending on the quest. You can either; Solve it, solve it with alternate means, solve it with betrayel, or fail... and each will offer different values depending on the issue.

Starting a war with a faction (i.e. raiding a village to initiate a hostile action) removes an unknown quantity from both Honor and Mercy.

Winning a battle is broken;
Unless your "StrengthRatio" is larger than 0.9 (ranging from what I would assume is 0.00 to 1.00), your "xpvalue" which is the factor in which your Valor trait increases, is multiplied by 0 - thus xpvalue is always 0 unless your strength ratio is greater than 0.9. So currently, you cannot gain any Valor experience by winning battles (again, unless your army is 10 times the size of the opposition army - with which you can only earn the experience valid to your contribution of that (which is how many units you kill, I believe)).

Those are the only events that are currently coded.

In identifying any of the changes, apparently none of the changes are logged unless the event value of xp earned is greater or equal to 10.
Personality traits are established from -2 to +2.
Hidden traits are established from 0 to 10.
I can't find out where it establishes what the numerical value is that's required to receive the trait (in either direction).
 
1. This depends on who your forces wound. I've looted full Lamellar plate armours from several battles before by ensuring my troops are the ones that wound the enemy leaders (that are wearing the armour). It seems whatever you wound, is permittable for you to loot...

2. Learning rate is determined by your overall level. The higher your base level, the slower your learning rate. Therefore, with the same FPs added to the same skills, your learning rate is the same.
1. well its good to know that at least someone has luck with the loot^^
and of course i kill leaders/ elite troops in battels (that are the first ones i attack) but in most cases i dont get good loot.
2. well thank you for the explanation, I very much hope that the developers will change that. (learning rate lvl)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom